Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 11-28-1 (2026)

Legislative Intent.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the intention of the Legislature by the passage of this chapter to authorize each county in the State of Alabama: (i) to sell and issue warrants for the purpose of financing the costs of acquiring, by construction, purchase or otherwise, any public facilities described in Section 11-28-1.1 that such county may be lawfully authorized to acquire at the time of the issuance of such warrants and (ii) to sell and issue warrants for the purpose of refunding any bonds, notes, warrants or other instruments evidencing valid debt at any time incurred or assumed by such county to pay the costs of acquiring such public facilities or to refund debt that, through one or more prior refundings, had been initially incurred for the payment of such costs, it being the intention of this chapter that any debt of such county may be refunded by warrants issued under this chapter irrespective of whether such debt was initially incurred under this chapter or under other provisions of law, whether such debt constituted a general obligation of such county or was a limited obligation payable solely from one or more specified sources, whether such debt was initially incurred by such county or was initially incurred by another public body and thereafter assumed by such county, and whether such debt was incurred or assumed by such county before or after December 21, 1983. This chapter shall be liberally construed in conformity with the intention expressed in the preceding sentence; provided, however, that nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to give any county new or increased authority to acquire any public facility described in Section 11-28-1.1 beyond the authority with respect to such public facility which such county may have pursuant to laws other than this chapter.

(Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 83-75, p. 78, §1; Acts 1983, 4th Ex. Sess., No. 83-921, p. 192, §1.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1989–2012 · leading case: Chism v. Jefferson Cnty., 954 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 2006).
Chism v. Jefferson Cnty., 954 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 2006). · cites it 19× “Jefferson County relies upon Ala.Code 1975, § 11-28-1 et seq., as its authority for issuing the education warrants.”
In re Jefferson Cnty., 474 B.R. 228 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012). · cites it 2× “It is at odds with how the Supreme Court of Alabama and Ala.Code § 11-28-1 et seq. treat a pledge of revenues in municipal financing, and is the diametric opposite of what is a pledge under the Indenture.”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson Cnty. (In re Jefferson Cnty.), 482 B.R. 404 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012). · cites it 2× “For the warrant based financing of its sewer system, the non-recourse, non-general obligation nature of the sewer system’s indebtedness is a requisite of Ala. Code § 11-28-1 et seq. (1975) when it comes to warrants that are not general obligations of a municipality and is…”
In Re Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 465 B.R. 243 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012). “Code § 11-28-1 et seq. treat a pledge of revenues in municipal financing, and is the diametric opposite of what is a pledge under the Indenture.”
Orange v. Bailey, 548 So. 2d 424 (Ala. 1989). · cites it 2× “nterpoint area of the County 3,500,000 “New juvenile court and detention facilities 3,000,000 “New office facilities for the Sheriff’s Department 2,500,000 “Completion of new communication system 1,000,000 “Remodeling of the main courthouse to accommodate change in organization…”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson Cnty. (In re Jefferson Cnty.), 474 B.R. 725 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012). · cites it 2× “For the warrant based financing of its sewer system, the non-recourse, non-general obligation nature of the sewer system’s indebtedness is a requisite of Ala. Code § 11-28-1 et seq. (1975) when it comes to warrants that are not general obligations of a municipality and is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.